I did notice an add for a 2d hand 3090, never used, intended for mining use but never left the building since a 4090 was also purchased. 1000 CAD!
I'm inclined to say that a 5070 is in fact a better value purchase which might be true but....

Veterancy piece
Warning

I will never forget the disappointment when trading an old Xeon for a ryzen 5 2600

In general, for anyone looking to play up to 1440P, a 12 GB card is a must have, this is the minimum in order for never getting VRAM issues. I would not give any warranty for any card lower than that. On top of that: I just do not like the insane stingy attitude from Nvidia, almost always trying to save up on valuable VRAM, just in order to save up on cost... yet... they still do demand a high price... no matter how much they are able to "save up" for themself. It is just unfair toward the customers so i do in general, a own philosophy, not support it and never recommend to anyone supporting it. Let Nvidia show your voice... and show them their limits of what they can get away with.

If a game is running into this "limit" then a game will not lose 5, 7, 9 or 11 FPS... it will lose half it its FPS in many cases.

Sure, for anyone not playing modern AAA games it might not be a issue at all.

For me, if i take something into consideration for general use... then i always go for the best deal for general use, involving any game possible. I do not try to pick a few "fitting" games and say "look... it does run well with my APU" or "It does run well with near lowest settings"... it is a well known trick and i am simply honest with myself and others.

Without any demand, people could pick almost anything and smile after... there is no need to even compare something or making any evaluation by such an approach. I do not try to make a game "fit" toward my card, i try to get a card able to make any game work in a sufficient manner, so, reverse order. So, yes, i do have a clear demand and i am demanding... so yes this is a challenge for many cards.

I absolutely do not care, in the end people can get whatever they enjoy, i just try to understand peoples mind and yes it is interesting.

I don't think 3000 series cards are made any more so they are both used, and therefore, used condition is a major factor. The extra memory is more important, and even 12gb is a bit insufficient these days. NVidia has always short changed on memory.

Kind of need more information like what resolution and games are you planning on playing.

If you, for example, game a lot, it is hard to argue with an enthusiast system, why wouldn't you spend a lot, relative speaking, of money if you spend day and night....

If i look at my latest car i actually spend only 6000 euro and had some stuff rebuild and added for another 1000. Of course i had to do some searching before i found the right almost 'full options' combination, i only have to repair the electric trunk to make it 'full' but yea, i only drive 30 km's a day and some in the wkend. Still, passengers usually give a compliment about the excellent seating, and of course 'senior' Buddhist influenced driver, currently i'm checking out new electric cars up to 600 p/m

That said, my latest IGPU experiment did manage to convince me that the CPU will probably be of more importance to me than the highest tiered GPU for my dwindling gaming interest. I might try Treadripper and get a xx70 or something

I just can say, for me, those cards are almost equal priced in many cases with so few "difference" that it is barely worth it going for the non XT if i could get 10% more performance for nearly the same price.

The advantage of the non XT obviously is the higher efficiency which is about 25% more efficient in average. Although if we look at the specs and how the XT is achieving the higher performance, then it is clear that It got about 10% more shading units. Yet this alone is not sufficient for pulling 10% away so the clock has been increased as well by about 20% and in order to make this clock always stable the Volt almost certainly has been increased too, in the end leading to 25% more power consumption.

This does not mean the card can not become adjusted to personal needs and if a good piece is gotten by using some adjustment, it may probably be able to run a few % faster with close to the same efficiency. In the end there is more custom possible using this card.

If someone just want a efficient card "out of the box" then certainly the non XT is "easier to deal with", at close to the same price in many cases.

Whats even more important apart from the correct settings is that a capable cooler has been installed... there might be some difference dependable on manufacturer. So, higher power consumption does not always mean "hotter hardware" because the factor cooling is another factor. Lower end cards in many cases do not have the same cooling solution, it depends on manufacturer.

It really was somehow funny and sad at once, when i was reading one of those "Daemon X Machina Titanic Scion"-reviews on "Vapor" because this gamer is using a very weak GPU not able to properly support a modern AAA-game, a GPU barely more expensive than the most expensive version of the game if someone would be buying it from Swiss (110 CHF).

Now everyone may say "OK, this is a rare exception... some lunatic" but things like that happens way more often than anyone with a sane mind would ever be able to "assume".

So, in general, anyone can use the GPU they enjoy... does not matter how old and how weak, whatever... but please do not expect the developers to make a new game fit for your PC. If so... then get a small Indie-game or very old classic-games... many gamers are doing it, thats fine.

Yet if a developer is creating a game with modern hardware in mind, then it should be respected and by any sane mind become noticed that this game may need a modern and capable GPU. It is that easy...
Such a GPU as well got a price usually several times higher than the most expensive edition of such a AAA-game with its most expensive version on the most expensive market... thats common sense; i can not even blame Nvidia and AMD for.

Why i clearly am bringing this up? Currently on Vapor this game is rated "mostly negative", every second of them because the gamers "moan because of bad performance" and as good as any of them does not seem to use a capable GPU.

°°°°°°°°°°°Started the game got to the first boss after the demo and frames go down to 24 no matter what settings because of the particle effects around the boss.°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

°°°°°°°°°°°°°worse performance compared to demo? once again having things un-rendered and low frame rate. but i am in lowest requirement so i guess. game also stuck after exit.

uhh how low end is my hardware?
ASUS TUF15
Windows 11
intel core i5-10300
24GBRAM
GPU NvidiaGTX1650
1TBSSD internal with 100GB+ free°°°°°°°°°°°°

And I say they're entirely in the right to complain. For one, years ago devs could make games look even better on worse hardware. And secondly, I see the minimum GPU in the game's requirements as GTX 1050, which is a lot worse than the 1650 in your example.

I was playing PC games in 1995 already and i can tell you, the minimum requirements and "their practical use" may have gone up and down but for certain i remember very exactly when a game 30 years back was not able to run any smooth on any PC which was only or barely above the minimum requirements. In general i always had to use a PC at least 2 times "above minimum specs". In general i always was using recommended settings but even recommended settings was rarely sufficient.

It was already the case up to 30 years ago, it is not something new. We just barely remember it because we are playing 30 years old classics on, in comparison, very advanced PCs.

I guess the mature PC gamers out there still remember the "Crysis-incident": A PC was not be able to run it smooth not even on the newest PCs back when it was released. We just totally forget about because right after the release of the PS4 and the second half of the PS3-era where hardware made massive leaps with hardware such as GTX 1080+ and at the same time the developers was being held back by weak consoles. So they always was taking those consoles into consideration and rarely was trying to go full out on PC games. This age has stopped with the release of the PS5-generation.

Nonetheless, i totally agree that UE5 is a "extreme leecher-engine" at the current condition; so they really have to improve it in some way. Right now, a UE5 game got high or even outstanding graphic quality but it is very ineffective on resources and is able to leech even the strongest GPUs out there. If a game is using this engine, then it does not matter what is written on the specs... it always means, without exception "powerful GPU required".

Perhaps the games using this engine can be considered "the new Crysis-games".

Still, i was testing this game i talk about personally already and i do not have any issues so far playing it on my PC at highest settings. Perhaps something ugly may "happen" at a certain point if i progress further... who knows. I simply only got 10 fingers and can not play or test out everything at once and i guess it need many hours for any appropriate revealings.

+10 FPS depends. From 30 to 40? Massive. From 120 to 130? Marginal.

Either way, I recommend upgrading once every 3-4 GPU generations. Then you will really notice the difference (and save a lot of money). That being said, my 4080 will probably be the final stop for a looooong time, due to them axing PhysX support from the 50 series on.

who know's what is going to happen, i mean, if it's the synergy between talking head and pr department that managed to evolve the industry to the point where they are now it might be up to the game influencer and their increasing attention for indie titles that will turn the whole thing around